Who Would Have Thought That A Random, Offseason Article About Michael Bennett's "Immaturity" Would Backfire This Badly?

SeattleTimes- I was 10 feet away from Bennett after that playoff loss to the Falcons when he ripped into a reporter for asking a fair question about the pass rush. He called him a “non-playing (expletive)” and asked what kind of adversity he’d been through, implying that there was no way it could be on par with an NFL player.

Well, that reporter survived cancer, which Bennett obviously didn’t know. But the fact that he never publicly apologized or even acknowledged it reeks of immaturity.

I don't think I am alone in claiming ignorance here. Seriously, who would have thought that an article targeting one of the most outspoken members of a notoriously media unfriendly locker room would be taken so poorly? I was simply stunned that Michael Bennett had a less than positive reaction to a  that (in full) reads as follows: "Here's a bunch of good things about Seattle's defensive end just so it doesn't look like this is a blatant hit piece that I conjured up for clicks in the dead of the offseason when I take the turn and label him immature for something he did 4 months ago". Just an absolutely shocking response...until you see the most column crippling 'Editor's Note' in the history of typed word....

"(Editor’s note: This column has been clarified to reflect that Michael Bennett privately contacted a reporter to express regret about his response to a question following the Seahawks’ playoff loss to the Falcons.)"

Whoooooops. That whole "Michael Bennett is an unforgiving criticizer of cancer survivors" angle really gets it's legs chop blocked out from underneath it when you find out that it's subject actually apologized for his emotional/unintentional gaff in the most genuine, mature way possible. Saying "sorry" by way of a medium that's not entirely public and thus completely incredulous? Who even knew that was a thing that existed in 2017? 

Man, if only there were a way that author Matt Calkins could have avoided being made to look like an informed jackass that potentially cost his publication access to certain areas of the Seahawks locker room. I'd have to do my research, but - off the top of my head - I can't think of anyway to make sure you have your facts straight when taking a retroactive stand on behalf of a colleague (and a retroactive stab at a professional athlete) other than by talking to that colleague even once between the months of January and May. Honestly? It's a good thing the journalist didn't go the investigative route or the integrity of his moot message would have been shot to shit before he even had a chance to share it with the world.